Next Article in Journal
The Piston Elastic: A Novel Device for Treating Entrapped Ectopic Permanent Molars
Next Article in Special Issue
Sun Protection and Sunburn in Children Aged 1–10 Years in Germany: Prevalence and Determinants
Previous Article in Journal
Is a Parry Fracture—An Isolated Fracture of the Ulnar Shaft—Associated with the Probability of Abuse in Children between 2 and 16 Years Old?
Previous Article in Special Issue
Sunbed Use among 11- to 17-Year-Olds and Estimated Number of Commercial Sunbeds in England with Implications for a ‘Buy-Back’ Scheme
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Children
Volume 8
Issue 8
10.3390/children8080651
children-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Cluster Randomized Trial: Sun Protection Intervention ‘Clever in Sun and Shade for Preschools’—Effectiveness and Dissemination

by
Nadja Seidel
1,2,3,*,
Vera Fieber
1,2,3,
Eckhard Wilhem Breitbart
4,
Martin Bornhäuser
1,2,3 and
Friederike Stölzel
1,2,3
1
Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, The Dresden University of Technology, 01307 Dresden, Germany
2
National Center for Tumor Diseases Dresden, University Cancer Center (NCT/UCC), 01307 Dresden, Germany
3
University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, 01307 Dresden, Germany
4
Association of Dermatological Prevention (ADP) e. V., 20457 Hamburg, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Children 2021, 8(8), 651; https://doi.org/10.3390/children8080651
Submission received: 15 June 2021 / Revised: 23 July 2021 / Accepted: 24 July 2021 / Published: 28 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Children and Ultraviolet Radiation)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Skin cancer is one of the most common types of cancer and UV radiation is one of the main risk factors. Therefore, sun protection, especially in childhood, is strongly recommended. We examined the effectiveness of the ‘Clever in Sun and Shade for Preschools’ program (CLEVER) in promoting sun protection behavior among preschool staff (trial registration: DRKS00023468) and describe its dissemination. Within a cluster randomized trial with 24 preschools (n = 273 staff members) stating a high need for sun protection measures, an educational workshop for preschool staff and a project kit with materials applicable in preschool groups was provided. Staff members of preschools taking part in CLEVER report significantly stronger sun protection behavior to avoid the sun (effect size [ES] 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.04 0.71, p < 0.05) and less perceived impediments to avoid the sun (ES −0.56, CI −0.82 −0.17, p < 0.01) after 12 months as well as higher self-efficacy to avoid the sun (ES 1.09, CI 0.39 1.07, p < 0.001) and to use sunscreen (ES 0.71, CI 0.03 0.88, p < 0.05) after 1 month. Compared to the control group, there was no significant effect on sunscreen use and further psychosocial outcomes. The effectiveness of CLEVER may be underrated due to a high drop-out rate. Within three years, an enhanced free-of-charge program kit, including a media-based workshop and materials, had reached over 4000 preschools, i.e., 7.1% of all daycare centers in Germany. The results show that CLEVER can strengthen sun protection, offer high-quality information at low cost, and is easily disseminable.

1. Introduction

Skin cancer is one of the most common types of cancer and the incidence of melanoma is continuously rising [1]. One of the main risk factors for the development of skin cancer is ultraviolet (UV) radiation [2,3]. Epidemiological data provide evidence of an increased risk of all types of skin cancer being associated with solar UV exposure [3,4]. The contribution of UV exposure during childhood is critical [5]. Due to the special structure of children’s skin, in which skin stem cells are closer to the skin surface up to the age of 12, UV radiation can infiltrate and damage skin stem cells in children more quickly [6,7]. Single events of intensive UV radiation, such as sunburn in childhood, can influence the risk of developing melanoma in adulthood [8,9]. One focus of primary prevention of skin cancer development, therefore, lies in the careful management of UV exposure in children and adolescents [7,10].
In accordance with recommendations of the World Health Organization [2,3], the German guideline on skin cancer prevention recommends a reduction of UV exposure by limiting time outdoors around midday, seeking shade, wearing protective clothes, using sunscreen, and avoiding sunburns as primary prevention measures for children [11]. It lists a number of knowledge-related, behavioral, and environmental measures that need to be considered when promoting sun protection (Table 1).
Several studies have shown that primary prevention significantly reduces the incidence of ‘white skin cancer’ as well as malignant melanoma [12]. However, only few interventions have been designed for the setting of preschools [13]. Most of these studies had limited effects on sun protection behavior [13,14,15], or limitations of the study design [16,17,18]. Examples for successful programs are ‘Sun protection is fun!’ with multiple interventions for preschool staff and parents as well as ‘SunSmart’ with a broader population-based focus [19,20,21]. Overall, the use of age-appropriate interventions using songs and games, for example, improves the knowledge of preschoolers [16,22]. Without the help of adults, however, children of this age are not able to transfer this knowledge into behavior. Including parents and preschool teachers in interventions is especially important for children at an early age, since they control the children’s environment to a large extent, act as behavioral models, and ultimately are supporters for behavior change processes [13,23,24,25]. Current studies show that less than half of the parents of preschool children use sun protection measures correctly and preschool teachers often seem to lack access to adequate information material on sun protection [26,27]. However, measures that are aimed solely at parents and teachers have only limited effects on actual sun protection practices for children [13,28]. Several studies in Germany indicate a reasonable level of knowledge regarding risk factors of skin cancer and sun protection [29,30,31]. Up to 90% of parents are already aware of the increased risk of skin cancer when exposed to the sun [24,30]. This increased knowledge might be a positive effect of sun protection campaigns and awareness programs, but is not automatically transferred into sun protection behavior [32]. Although especially sun exposure avoidance and wearing textiles is recommended, surveys of parents and preschool staff show that primarily sunscreen and hats are used [33,34,35,36], and even parents with a good knowledge of skin cancer risk factors do not adequately protect their children if they have an uncritical attitude towards tanning [37]. Next to focusing on the individuals, the importance of changing relevant settings such as preschools for children has been highlighted [11,38,39]. Sun protection policies often focus on behavioral and environmental measures. Environmental measures are for example technical and organizational interventions, such as the establishment of outdoor areas providing shade in preschools and schools and the adaptation of organizational processes that keep children protected from the midday sun [11,20,40,41]. The UV Index as a risk communication tool, available as digital displays on electronical billboards or accessed via apps and websites, can be useful for improving sun-protective behavior by advising appropriate measures [42,43]. However, interventions aiming solely on the adoption of sun protection policies have limited effects on actual sun protection practices for children [13,28,44], and there is still more research needed on UV Index-related interventions [45]. Overall, interventions designed to last several years and including a large number of settings as well as components such as age-specific curricula and information and training material, have proved to be effective [21,46,47].
When planning a prevention program aimed at children, using a setting-based approach is internationally recommended as well as anchored in German law [39,48,49]. The setting-based approach includes the individual structures of different settings and uses a research-based theoretical framework that involves families, peers, schools, and community partners. Regarding sun protection, a general theoretical foundation, which comprises all determinants for the implementation of appropriate child-centered measures, is not yet available [37,50]. Further recommendations for program-planning comprise long-term and age-specific measures as well as measures that establish policies, institutional, and structural support [39].
In Germany, a ‘Periods-of-Life-Program’ for primary prevention of skin cancer was initiated by the Association of Dermatological Prevention (ADP) e. V. in cooperation with the World Health Organization [10]. It focuses on accompanying young people aged between 0 and 18 years as well as the people responsible for their education. Within a cooperation of German Cancer Aid, ADP e. V., the National Center for Tumor Diseases Dresden and the University of Cologne, the campaign ’Clever in Sun and Shade’ pursues these efforts and combines setting programs for medical practices, preschools, schools, and leisure facilities with media campaigns, involving social and cultural norms as well as legislative and environmental context.
To offer a comprehensive program for preschools that can reduce the risk for skin cancer, the authors developed the ‘Clever in Sun and Shade for Preschools’-program (CLEVER). The program combines theory-based individual as well as environmental interventions and addresses staff members, children and parents. It has been developed to provide materials that effectively promote sun protection and may be easily implemented and disseminated to face the challenges of limited personal and financial resources within both healthcare and educational systems. According to Rabin et al., “dissemination is defined as an active approach of spreading evidence-based interventions to the target audience via determined channels using planned strategies. Implementation is the process of putting to use or integrating evidence-based interventions within a setting” [51] (p. 444). Only few of the numerous cancer prevention interventions that have proven to be effective have been used extensively in practice [51,52]. How to bridge the gap between research and practice and to effectively disseminate and implement prevention programs needs to be explored in more detail [51,53].
This article reports results on the programs’ effectiveness in promoting sun protection among preschool staff. We expected a benefit of CLEVER in the staff’s sun protection behavior and related psychosocial outcomes and in preschool’s written sun protection policy, compared to the sole use of a brochure. Dissemination strategy and implementation of an advanced CLEVER project kit are described and discussed.

2. Methods

Adherence to CONSORT guidelines of reporting cluster randomized trials (CRT) is confirmed [54], and the CONSORT-checklist is provided (see Table S1). The study is registered at the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (DRKS00023468).

2.1. Trial Design

This study is based on a CRT with a pre-post-follow up-control group design. Clusters were preschools in Saxony, Germany, with a stratifying variable ‘type of community’. The preschool as institution was the unit of randomization as well as the unit of intervention. Since the intervention focuses on the preschool as institution and the setting changes independently of the participation of every single preschool staff member, the CRT design was selected to evaluate preschool-wide effects of the intervention and maximize the ecological and external validity.

2.2. Participants

Preschools as clusters had to meet the inclusion criteria of being located in Saxony, having at least 10 preschool teachers, being interested in participating in CLEVER, not being previously enrolled in a sun protection program, and stating a subjective need for further sun protection measures (i.e., providing sufficiently shaded areas, avoiding the sun, using sunscreen) and information on sun protection. Based on a previous needs assessment with 2145 contacted out of a total of 2237 preschools in Saxony with 653 responses [33], n = 52 preschools met the inclusion criteria. Along the stratifying variable ‘type of community’, preschools in each of the four categories (≤5000, 5000–20,000, 20,000–100,000, ≥100,000 inhabitants) were randomly contacted until 6 preschools per category agreed to participate. Recruitment stopped after 32 contacted preschools, when 8 declined and 24 agreed to participate, resulting in a proportional stratified cluster sample with a total of 24 preschools with n = 273 staff members (female: 96.7%, age: M = 43.08 years). Participating preschools were randomly assigned to an intervention group or a standard-of-care control group.

2.3. Interventions

The intervention was implemented within the clusters in May/June 2016. CLEVER combines theory-based behavioral and setting-oriented measures and incorporates recommendations for primary prevention of skin cancer [10,11,39], addressing all recommendations listed in Table 1 that are appropriate for this setting.
The program aims to support preschool staff in creating an environment that protects children and employees from overexposure to UV radiation. This is approached by promoting sun protection behavior and positive attitudes of staff members towards sun protection as well as stimulating environmental changes and briefing the children. It uses theory-based methods for change, e.g., active learning, participatory problem solving, discussion, and facilitation [38,55,56]. CLEVER consists of an educational team workshop and a project week with ‘Clown Zitzewitz’, the program’s sun protection clown.
The two h team workshop took place within a regular preschool team meeting with all staff members present. Table 2 lists workshop contents and methods for change in detail. A key aspect of the workshop is the development of an individual sun protection strategy for each preschool. This includes the consideration of behavior-related measures for the direct protection of children (e.g., checking whether children are wearing a sun hat/baseball cap), role model-measures for sun protection of preschool staff, environmental-related measures (technical and organizational, e.g., shading by sun shade sails or trees, checking the UV Index, parental support), as well as repeated educational measures for children and staff. Perceived barriers for the implementation of the recommendations are discussed and concise plans of action are drawn up for the preschool team. Group discussions are conducted, focusing on tanning attitudes.
Subsequently, CLEVER material for a project week is provided. Clown Zitzewitz as a theme runs through the entire CLEVER material for children (Figure 1). The story of Zitzewitz going on vacation and learning the importance of sun protection with the help of his friend Zottelfloh and the children is frequently referred to in CLEVER materials. ‘Theater in health’ can be an effective method in teaching health behavior to children [57], and effectiveness of the theater play ‘Clown Zitzewitz and sun protection’ on children has been investigated [22]. Watching Clown Zitzewitz as a model helps children to witness negative short-term consequences of disregarded sun protection but more importantly to learn how to behave in the sun.
Within this four-day-project week, children engage themselves with sun protection for at least 1 h per day. The materials include a film- and pantomime-version of the play ’Clown Zitzewitz and sun protection’. Based on the Theory of Social Learning [58,59], Clown Zitzewitz and his friend Zottelfloh act as role models that convey the desired target behavior to the children in a funny and memorable way. The materials also contain the ‘Sun protection-Song’ and a storybook for recapitulating sun protection measures. The riddle on shade and the ‘shade detectives’ exercise help the children to understand the concept of shade and look for spots that are sufficiently shaded in preschools’ outdoor-area. Working on the poster ‘Sun protection experts’, the children decide together what will protect the clown from the sun and attach the cut-out images to the poster. Under guidance of the teachers, children practice the correct application of sunscreen. The parents’ afternoon, which is prepared with invitation cards and holds a performance of the ‘Sun protection song’, marks the end of the project week. Figure 2 gives an overview of CLEVER material. The project week should be established each year on a set date or modified according to the preschools’ needs.
Staff members of the control-group preschools received the skin cancer prevention brochure by German Cancer Aid [60] (Figure 3), and were offered CLEVER after the study.

2.4. Measures

Baseline, 1-month (medium-term), and 1-year (long-term) assessments were conducted with a paper-and-pencil self-report questionnaire based on previous research (Table 3). The instrument collects data on preschool staff’s UV-protective behavior as primary outcome, relevant psychosocial constructs, and existence of a written sun protection policy as secondary outcomes as well as demographic characteristics.
Based on previous research [20,61], UV-protective measures are divided into sunscreen use and sun avoidance. Sunscreen use addresses the use of sunscreen with a sun protection factor 30+ and regular reapplication. Sun avoidance addresses the use of protective clothes and providing shade. The psychosocial constructs are based on the Theory of Planned Behavior [62], the Social Cognitive Theory [63], and the Health Action Process Approach [64]. Results of factor analyses examining the validity have been reported [61,65]. Scales, reliability, and items of the questionnaire are described in detail in Table 3. To improve reliability, we deleted some of the originally collected items. Only items that are included in the final scales are reported. Most items had 4- to 5-point Likert response scales. Scales were computed as mean scores of the items, except for sun protection policy, which is a sum score.
Behavioral Outcomes were measured based on previous publications [20,61]. Items address the staff’s sunscreen use on their students, students’ use of protective clothing, use of sun shade sails or parasols, and the staff’s own sun protection as part of being a role model on the individual participant’s level. ‘Sunscreen Use Behavior’ (Cronbach’s α = 0.63) and ‘Sun-Avoidance Behavior’ (i.e., protective clothing and shade; α = 0.34) were surveyed on the individual participant’s level.
Psychosocial Outcomes were measured based on previous work [20,37,61,65], and were partly adapted to the Health Action Process Approach [64,66]. ‘Sunscreen Use Self-Efficacy’ (α = 0.62), ‘Sun-Avoidance Self-Efficacy’ (α = 0.58), ‘Health-Related Outcome Expectancies’ (α = 0.74), ‘Appearance-Related Outcome Expectancies’ (α = 0.58), ‘Impediments to Sunscreen Use’ (α = 0.78), and ‘Impediments to Sun-Avoidance’ (α = 0.40) were surveyed on the individual participant’s level. Each self-efficacy scale represented one item for action self-efficacy and one for maintenance self-efficacy. Necessity of sun protection was measured according to Gefeller et al. [31], and addressed the staff’s opinion in five different situations (α = 0.68); all five items were positively correlated.
The Sun Protection Policy was measured based on Crane et al. [14], asking staff whether a written sun protection policy on a preschool level existed (α = 0.76).
Table
Table 3. Scales, reliability, and items of the questionnaire.
Table 3. Scales, reliability, and items of the questionnaire.
ScaleReliability 1ItemReference
Sunscreen Use 20.63I put sunscreen on my students when we go outside.[61]
I take sunscreen along when we go on field trips.[61]
I use sunscreen with an UV-protection factor of 30+ for my students.[61]
I reapply sunscreen on my students every 2 h when we are outside between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m.[61]
I put sunscreen on myself when I go outside with my students.(role model)
Sun-Avoidance 20.34My students wear hats or caps when they go outside.[61]
My students wear tank tops or halter tops when they go outside. 5[61]
My students wear long shorts or skirts when they go outside.[61]
I take sun shade sails or parasols outside and on field trips so that I can set up shaded areas.[61]
When I go outside with my students, I keep to shaded areas myself and wear protective clothing.(role model)
Psychosocial Outcomes
Sunscreen Use Self-Efficacy 30.62I am confident of being able
… to properly apply sunscreen on my students.[61] (task)
… to ensure that my students’ parents support me in the provision or use of sunscreen.(task)
… to take sunscreen with me on any occasion when my students may be outside.[61] (maintenance)
… to get more sunscreen for my students whenever necessary.[61] (maintenance)
Sun-Avoidance Self-Efficacy 30.58I am confident of being able
… to ensure that my students’ parents provide them with protective clothing.(task)
… to decide if an area is sufficiently shaded to protect my students from the sun.[61] (task)
… to check that my students are wearing protective clothes before they go outside.[61] (maintenance)
… to provide spare clothes in case the students‘ parents have forgotten suitable clothes.(maintenance)
Health-Related Outcome Expectancies 30.74Avoiding overexposure to the sun protects from premature skin-aging.[65]
Avoiding overexposure to the sun decreases the risk for skin cancer.[65]
Appearance-Related Outcome Expectancies 30.58Tanning makes me look better. 5[37]
Tanned skin is healthy skin. 5[37]
Impediments to Sunscreen Use 30.78Putting on sunscreen on my students takes too much time.[61]
Putting on sunscreen on my students is always messy.[61]
Impediments to Sun-Avoidance 30.40We do not have enough shade from trees, sun-shade sails, or parasols.
Preventing students from taking off protective clothing outdoors is difficult.
Necessity of Sun protection 30.68I think it is important to protect oneself from the sun in the following situations
… at the beach.
… at noon.
… on sunny evenings.
… on cloudy summer days.
… during outdoor sports activities.		[31]
Sun protection Policy 40.76Is it recorded in writing in the facility concept or other documents, that parents are requested
… to bring hats or protective clothing?
… to provide sunscreen or if the preschool supplies sunscreen?
… to provide a written permission for the use of sunscreen?		[14]
1 Cronbach’s α; 2 Response: 0 = never, 4 = always; 3 Response: 0 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree; 4 Response: 1 = yes, 0 = no; 5 Indicates item was reversed.
Program exposure was measured within the 1-month as well as the 1-year assessment. Staff members were asked if they participated in the educational workshop and implemented the project week with the children (for the intervention group) or if they had read the brochure on sun protection (for the control group).
Dissemination strategy and implementation following the study phase is described and evaluated according to the Diffusion of Innovations Theory [67] and the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) Framework [68].

2.5. Sample Size

Based on a repeated measures ANOVA with two times of measurement, a mean effect size estimate (f (V) = 0.25) of behavior change at the level of preschool teachers with an assumed significance level of α = 0.05 and a power of 0.80, the total sample is 128 preschool teachers (G * Power 3.1) [69,70]. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) in CRTs in preschools and schools ranged from 0.05 to 0.30 [61,71,72,73]. We anticipated a design effect due to an ICC of 0.15 and a mean cluster size of 10 [74], as well as a drop-out of 25%; thus 240 preschool teachers, i.e., 24 preschools, were required.
Post hoc sensitivity analysis revealed that, considering a design effect due to an ICC of 0.008 for our changes in the primary outcome, a mean cluster size of 6.33 (SD 4.70) and the correction of the design effect for the coefficient of variation of cluster sizes CV = 0.74 [75] within an ANCOVA with two covariates, a medium to large effect size of f (V) = 0.37 could be detected with a power of 0.80 and a significance level of α = 0.05 [69].

2.6. Randomization

Preschools meeting all inclusion criteria were randomized (1:1) with stratified random sampling. The stratifying variable was ‘type of community’ (≤5000, 5000–20,000, 20,000–100,000, ≥100,000 inhabitants) of the preschool. All institutions responsible for the preschools gave their consent before randomization. A blind randomization was carried out by running a randomization script over the list of encrypted preschool codes. Allocation sequence, preschool enrollment, and assignment to intervention were performed by the study investigators. Informed written consent to participation was required from the preschool teachers. All educational staff members of participating preschools with a written consent form were included. Blinding was not possible after assignment to either control or intervention group.

2.7. Statistical Methods

To evaluate changes after intervention regarding sun protection behavior, impediments and sun protection policy (change baseline–1-year assessment) as well as necessity of sun protection, self-efficacy and outcome expectancies (change baseline–1-month assessment), we conducted linear mixed-effects models (LMM) on change scores with treatment group as fixed effect, preschool as random effect, as well as corresponding baseline scores and age as covariates. Outliers within the change scores were replaced by mean-score plus two times the standard deviation [76]. One-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) were used to compare intervention and control group at baseline. We computed ICC for the primary outcomes out of the ANOVA estimator [77] and provide 95% confidence intervals (CI) for effects [78]. For further exploratory analyses, we report descriptive statistics of baseline item responses and LMM-results on single items. Parallel multiple mediation analyses were performed, using the PROCESS macro Version 3.5, to predict changes in sun protection behavior with intervention group as independent variable and changes in self-efficacy, outcome expectancies, impediments, necessity of sun protection and sun protection policy as mediators regarding sun avoidance and sunscreen use, respectively [79,80]. Two-tailed tests were used and all statistics were performed on an intention-to-treat basis using SPSS, Version 27.0 [81].

3. Results

3.1. Participant Flow

The flowchart (Figure 4) describes the numbers of clusters as well as staff members that were randomly assigned, received intended treatment, and were analyzed for the primary outcome. 54% of staff members were lost to follow-up (1-month and 1-year assessment). Significant differences in the baseline scores of Sun-Avoidance Self-Efficacy (mean difference: 0.15, CI 0.00 0.29, p < 0.05) and Health-Related Outcome Expectancies (0.29, CI 0.04 0.54, p < 0.05) were found with higher scores for the drop-outs.

3.2. Recruitment

Recruitment took place from November 2015 to March 2016. We surveyed preschool staff in April/May 2016 (baseline), one month after the intervention in June/July 2016 (1-month assessment), and one year after the intervention in June 2017 (1-year assessment).

3.3. Baseline Data

Table 4 contains baseline information on demographic characteristics and outcome scores for intervention and control group. No significant differences were found between the two treatment groups.

3.4. Outcomes

Reliability for the subscales ranges from good for ‘Impediments for Sunscreen Use’ (α = 0.78) and ‘Sun Protection Policy’ (α = 0.76) to low, especially for ‘Sun-Avoidance Behavior’ (α = 0.34) and ‘Impediments for Sun-Avoidance’ (α = 0.40), possibly reflecting the diversity of the construct ‘Sun-Avoidance’. For changes in ‘Sun-Avoidance Behavior’, ICC = 0.001 (for baseline score 0.09) and for changes in ‘Sunscreen Use Behavior’, ICC = 0.008 (for baseline score 0.14). No adverse events or harms were reported.

3.4.1. Program Exposure

At the 1-month assessment, 73% of staff members in the intervention group reported their workshop attendance and 72% reported to have implemented the project week at least partly. Of the control group, 59% reported having read the brochure at least partly. At the 1-year assessment, 62.8% of staff members reported to have implemented the project week at least partly anew in the second year.

3.4.2. Intervention Effects

Table 5 presents changes in behavioral and psychosocial outcomes and sun protection policy by the treatment group. After adjustment for baseline score and age and controlling for random effects of preschool, preschool staff members showed a significant increase in their behavior to protect children from the sun by avoiding the sun, i.e., providing shade and using protective clothes (p < 0.05). There was no change in the use of sunscreen. Regarding psychosocial outcomes, self-efficacy regarding sun-avoidance (p < 0.001) as well as ‘regarding the use of sunscreen’ (p < 0.01) increased significantly. Concerning UV-protective behavior, impediments to sun avoidance (p < 0.01) but not impediments to sunscreen use (p = 0.88) decreased in the intervention group. There was no significant treatment effect regarding outcome expectancies (p = 0.48, p = 0.86), necessity for sun protection (p = 0.21) and sun protection policy (p = 0.58).
Exploratory ancillary analyses of changes in single items of sun protection behavior show no significant group differences: put sunscreen on when outside (p = 0.98), take sunscreen on field trips (p = 0.85), use of sun protection factor 30+ (p = 0.60), reapply sunscreen every 2 h (p = 0.43), put sunscreen on myself when getting outside with students (p = 0.50), students wear hats or caps (p = 0.19), students wear tank tops (p = 0.38), students wear long shorts/skirts (p = 0.60), staff set up shaded areas (p = 0.35), keep to shaded areas myself, and use protective clothing when getting outside with students (p = 0.07).
To describe the sun protection behavior, attitudes, and further variables, baseline ratings of the whole sample are reported (Table 6).
Figure 5 shows the pathways of the mediation analyses. The relationship between CLEVER and change in Sun-Avoidance Behavior is mediated by a change in Impediments to Sun-Avoidance (indirect effect = 0.055, CI 0.001, 0.143), but not by changes in Sun-Avoidance Self-Efficacy (0.022, CI −0.072, 0.118), Health-Related Outcome Expectancies (−0.014, CI −0.094, 0.014), Appearance-Related Outcome Expectancies (−0.021, CI −0.072, 0.026), Necessity for Sun protection (−0.018, CI −0.025, 0.099) and Sun protection policy (−0.001, CI −0.035, 0.035). Participating in the CLEVER intervention significantly reduced impediments towards sun-avoidance behavior and reduced impediments were significantly associated with better sun-avoidance behavior. Furthermore, we found the relationship between CLEVER and a change of Sunscreen Use Behavior is not to be mediated by changes in Sunscreen Use Self-Efficacy (indirect effect = 0.063, CI −0.083, 0.220), Health-Related Outcome Expectancies (0.001, CI −0.075, 0.071), Appearance-Related Outcome Expectancies (0.026, CI −0.046, 0.118), Impediments to Sunscreen Use (0.066, CI −0.115, 0.227), Necessity for Sun protection (−0.010, CI −0.113, 0.063), and Sun protection Policy (−0.001, CI −0.063, 0.047).

3.4.3. Dissemination and Implementation of CLEVER

After study completion, the intervention was adjusted to reduce personnel expenses for the educational workshop and therefore reduce costs and facilitate the program implementation. Based on the experiences of the educational workshop, an interactive media-based workshop as well as a checklist for the sun protection strategy was developed. The media-based workshop uses the filmed story of Clown Zitzewitz seeking the advice of a dermatologist on his latest sunburn (Figure 6). In several sequences, Zitzewitz and the expert cover several “prototypical” attitudes in favor of or against sun protection. The film is supposed to promote team discussion on the subject of sun protection. The checklist supports the preschool team to develop their own sun protection strategy by analyzing the status quo, setting goals, and fostering detailed planning (Figure 7; for full checklist see Figure S1).
Since 2018, CLEVER has been available as a project kit guiding preschools to implement a comprehensive sun protection intervention (Figure 8). It consists of a media-based interactive educational workshop for preschool-staff (DVD and checklist) as well as material applicable in preschool groups and is mailed to interested institutions free-of-charge. A preschool that has conducted and documented the CLEVER workshop for its staff as well as the project week with the children, can receive the ‘Clever in Sun and Shade’-Award. This contributes to the institutions’ self-commitment to maintain sun protection measures and illustrates the importance of sun protection and skin cancer prevention to parents and the community (Figure 9). In addition to the visible award, a lottery of funds for trees and sun shade sails for awarded preschools is used as an incentive. Multipliers can also be awarded as ‘Clever in Sun and Shade’-partners. New material for the project week is constantly developed and offered to preschools to (1) address further sub-target groups or related target groups (e.g., finger play and picture book for children < 3 years, experiments for kids in pre-primary education or elementary school grade 1 & 2), (2) set incentives to repeat the project week each year with novel material, and (3) provide further low-threshold material. For these additional and low-threshold material, ideas of preschools as well as recent trends in education are considered. One example is recent material for yoga with Clown Zitzewitz, which might be especially appealing to a subgroup of preschool teachers (Figure 10). Yoga materials can be implemented in pre-primary education within preschools beyond a project week but also work well for media campaigns.
For dissemination, communication objectives according to the diffusion of innovations model were created to make the case that CLEVER: (1) conveys current recommendations on sun protection for the living environment of children (relative advantage); (2) is theoretically sound and scientifically supported, and free of advertising (compatibility); (3) enables flexible, independent implementation of various project modules (complexity); (4) is free-of-charge (trialability); (5) provides guidance on sustainable implementation in everyday life and makes long-term commitment visible with an award (observability) [82].
Dissemination methods used in CLEVER are constantly adapted and elaborated. They aim at district officials; education and health department staff as multipliers; as well as preschool teachers, managers, and parents as persons responsible for youth education. These methods comprise emailing, telephone contact, presentations on public events, displays at various conferences, websites (Figure 11), advertising in publications relevant to target groups and word-of-mouth referrals. Cooperations are established with statutory accident insurance companies, who are responsible for preschool settings in Germany, and health insurance companies, whose task amongst others comprises the support of primary prevention measures to motivate and enable individuals to keep themselves healthy. The CLEVER team also targeted its dissemination activities to social media change agents such as Susanne Klehn, an anchorwoman and skin cancer patient herself, and the ambassador for skin cancer prevention for German Cancer Aid. Opinion leaders were also targeted, including researchers and state, federal, or private organizations responsible for children’s health by giving presentations at state, national, and international meetings and making direct contact with key change agents.
Costs for printing and mailing per project kit are about 5 €, which are covered by German Cancer Aid. Over three years, more than 4000 preschools out of 55,900 daycare centers have ordered the program. Thus, 7.1% of all German daycare centers with 44,000 preschool teachers and 260,000 children have potentially been reached. Cooperation with statutory accident insurance companies led to a locally higher reach and thus a proportion of participating preschools. The absolute number and proportion of preschools that implement the program is not known. Feedback is gained only from preschools that register for the award, which were 271 preschool adopting the program. Out of these, 258 have successfully been awarded and 13 were declined due to insufficient program fidelity. For these 258 awarded preschools, program fidelity was around 90%. Maintenance has not been measured, but awarded preschools make a commitment to implement CLEVER every year.

4. Discussion

Unlike congenital risk factors such as skin type, personal UV exposure can be influenced to a significant extent by behavior and external circumstances. Since “childhood is believed to be a susceptible window for long-term harmful effects of UV, […] effective UV radiation protection from childhood is necessary to control both immediate and long-term harmful effects on children’s skin” [7] (p. 349). Lessons learned from previous studies and programs are that sun protection education has to be accompanied by behavioral as well as environmental measures and vice-versa [13,21,38,39,47]. Up to date, only few studies have investigated the effects of sun protection interventions in a preschool setting using randomized controlled trials or CRTs [83,84]. A minority of these evidence-based programs are still continued, such as the best-known and well-studied SunSmart Schools and Early Childhood Membership Programs in Australia, as well as the US program Ray and the Sunbeatables™, which is based on the ‘Sun Protection is Fun’ intervention [21,85,86].
The CLEVER study is the first CRT in Germany to investigate a sun protection preschool setting intervention aiming at individual behavior and environmental changes in a sample with a stated high need for sun protection measures. Furthermore, it is the first nationwide German sun protection program being embedded in a larger focus addressing young people and has explicitly been developed to be easily disseminated. Due to a high drop-out rate, only medium to large effects could be detected. This may underrate the effectiveness of the CLEVER program. Furthermore, the external validity may be limited by the drop-out. Childcare institutions often undergo a high staff turnover [20,87]. The impact of CLEVER may be restricted to staff members being present at the implementation of the intervention.

4.1. Effectiveness

At the 12-month assessment, staff members in intervention preschools were more likely to protect their students by avoiding the sun and stated lower impediments to sun-avoidance than staff members in preschools that received an information brochure. Furthermore, significant intervention effects on self-efficacy to avoid the sun and to use sunscreen were found at the 1-month assessment. No significant intervention effects were detected for sunscreen use behavior and its impediments, health- and appearance-related outcome expectancies, the necessity for sun protection, and the preschool’s sun protection policy. The positive treatment effects, particularly for avoiding the sun, may be a result of the consistent message that states that these measures are recommended before sunscreen use. These findings are in line with recommendations of skin cancer prevention [11] and are therefore greatly appreciated.
Despite CLEVER’s overall significant effect on sun-avoiding behavior, there were neither significant intervention effects on the single measures of wearing a hat or protective clothing by the students, of setting up shaded areas nor of acting as a role model by avoiding the sun oneself. This suggests a long-term benefit of CLEVER in the general concept of avoiding the sun, possibly adding up through smaller changes. Even if James et al. confirmed the validity of a similar scale [61], the scale seems to be heterogeneous since internal consistency is quite low. Regarding the effect on the use of sunscreen, neither a general effect of the intervention nor a benefit on the single measures of the use of sunscreen, the sun protection factor, taking sunscreen on field trips, and acting as a role model by using sunscreen oneself could be found. Interventions similar to CLEVER reported variable outcomes. The program ‘Sun Protection is Fun’ improved use of sun-protective clothing, shade provision, as well as sunscreen use [20]. For the US program, ‘Block the sun, not the fun’, only behavioral effects for sunscreen use were seen [14]. Members of the Australian SunSmart program reported more sun protection practices and over the decades, most sun protection practices such as the use of sunscreen, hats, and sun-protective clothing were used by an increased proportion of all nationwide early-childhood services [88].
According to the Health Action Process Approach and several studies, actual health behavior is built up by pre-intentional motivational and post-intentional volitional processes [64]. Within pre-intentional processes, the belief in one’s capability of using sunscreen or avoiding the sun (self-efficacy) is as important as the belief of positive health- and appearance-related consequences for building an intention for sun protection practices, even for the protection of children [37,64,65]. Within our intervention, we were able to promote the preschool staff’s perceived self-efficacy regarding sunscreen use and sun-avoiding behavior, but could not promote positive outcome expectancies. Whereas the belief of sun protection behavior on positive health consequences has been already high at baseline, the median moderate belief of positive appearance-related consequences may counteract the intervention’s benefits in some individuals or even preschools and thus impede appropriate sun protection behavior. In a study by Gritz et al. [20], tanning attitudes were only affected after 24 months rather than after 12 months, pointing out that it possibly requires even more time to change these attitudes. Once an intention is built, the “good intention” has to be transformed into a detailed plan on how to perform it [64]. Within our intervention, this ‘action planning’ of sun protection measures is anchored in the development of a detailed sun protection policy. By this, even if a staff member has “no good intention” on the individual level, it may be obliged to carry out the desired behavior within the preschool. According to the Health Action Process Approach, the anticipation of barriers is also an important component of planning [64]. The ‘coping planning’ is the imagination of possible barriers which generates strategies to overcome them [64]. Within our team workshop, barriers to adequate sun protection were pointed out and the team discussed ways to overcome these barriers. The individual’s maintenance self-efficacy, which represents the beliefs about one’s capability to deal with barriers that arise during the maintenance of behavior, is also important [64].
The presence of a written sun protection policy and necessity of sun protection were not changed by CLEVER. This may be due to a mismatch in the items of these scales and the intervention contents. The sun protection policy within CLEVER focuses on more measures than written instructions for the work with parents, i.e., behavioral, technical, and organizational measures. The dependence of preschool staff on parents to provide hats and clothes to protect children as well as the need for more parental contribution and sponsors to supply and finance sunscreen has been highlighted earlier [20,33]. In a German study, a majority of preschools (86%) had sun protection rules, while only a minority (18%) provided a written policy [87]. Guidelines concerning seeking shade and avoiding peak sun intensity hours were stated less often than wearing hats and applying sunscreen, while long-sleeved clothing and sunglasses were rarely or never mentioned [87]. However, recent studies in preschool and primary school settings in Australia show the potential impact of sun protection strategies on sun protection practices [85,88,89]. In contrast to Germany, about 86% of all Australian early childhood services provide a recent sun protection policy [88], and the development of a sun protection strategy has been shown to be associated with better sun protection behavior of children and staff [89]. Constant change in staffing and leadership, but also in children and parents, has been described as a barrier to implementation [90]. Staff turnover in childcare centers is commonly high and therefore the long-term impact of skin cancer prevention programs is still unclear [87]. To enhance successful implementation, strategies that reinforce key behavioral messages and that are accessible for new staff are required [90]. Besides repeated interventions, the development of a written sun protection policy is recommended, since it may secure the implementation with a high standard [87]. Further research on CLEVER may benefit from the adaption of the questionnaire according to these investigations, i.e., the comprehensive measurement of child-related sun protection practice criteria (hat-wearing practices, sunscreen practices, and protective clothing practices) as well as organizational-level sun protection practices (enforcement of policy, role modelling, education, shade provision, policy review and update, information for caregivers) [88].
The necessity of sun protection at the beach and on outdoor sports activities were part of the scale but not of the curriculum and could therefore not be enhanced. The focus of the CLEVER-curriculum on everyday settings is in line with the findings of a survey among German parents. There is an apparently a lower subjective need to protect children in everyday outdoor situations in contrast to beach settings [91]. It is worth pointing out the necessity of sun protection on cloudy summer days. In accordance with a study on parents [31], staff members overrated the protective effect of clouds. UV radiation may even pass through a thin layer of cloud cover [11], and it is therefore a common mistake to neglect sun protection on cloudy days. Overall, more research is needed for the validation of knowledge or subjective necessity of sun protection and sun protection policy measurements. Both aspects may, besides epidemiological data on skin cancer and sun protection behavior, contribute to describe possible effects and reach of sun protection programs and campaigns within a larger scope [10,31,44,88].
Possible intervention mechanisms can be evaluated using mediation analysis. We assessed self-efficacy, outcome expectancies, impediments, necessity for sun protection, and sun protection policy as mediators for the intervention. The results suggest that less perceived impediments may have moderated the CLEVER effect on sun-avoidance behavior. However, this finding should be interpreted with caution, since observations are dependent on the CRT design; multiple mediators that affect one another may act as confounders; and reverse causation could be existent because the mediators were partly measured at the same time as the outcome [80,92]. In line with this, Hunkin and Morris point out that there might be substantial barriers in implementing specific sun protection practices by daycare centers, limiting the effectiveness of the interventions, and that there is a need for future research on these impediments [88].
What should be considered to further enhance sun protection programs? Baseline measurement displays a need to support preschool staff to promote protective shirts and shorts/skirts, to put on sunscreen, and to act as a role model regarding sun-avoidance and sunscreen use. Furthermore, staff especially needs to be encouraged to reapply sunscreen at appropriate intervals and to take sunscreen on field trips. Measures that are reported to be well implemented are ‘students wearing caps or hats’, ‘staff takes sun shade sails or parasols outside and on field trips to set up shaded areas’, and ‘the use of sunscreen, even with a sun protection factor of 30+’. We have not collected data of sufficiently shaded areas. Several surveys show similar results, pointing out that primarily sunscreen and hats are used [33,34,35,93]. Moreover, staff turnover, sun protection policy development, impediments, tanning attitudes, and the overestimation of the UV-protective effect of clouds should be paid more attention to in future programs.

4.2. Dissemination

A significant number of children can be reached via programs in preschools. In Germany, more than 92% of children aged 3–6 are cared for in 55,900 preschools, i.e., more than 2 million children [94]. With our free-of-charge program kit, we reached 7.1% of all German day-care centers within 3 years, representing potentially 44,000 preschool teachers and 260,000 children. This was only possible by adapting the original educational workshop to a media-based interactive workshop that could be implemented independently by the preschool. Furthermore, funding for the project kits is necessary to offer it free-of-charge and to reduce barriers to order it. In order to spread information on CLEVER, being free-of-charge and free of advertising was an important characteristic for our main multipliers, the education and health department staff. For funding, on the other hand, the most important characteristics were being in line with national recommendations of sun protection and considering the setting approach that is anchored in national law.
The effectiveness of the current mail-only intervention with its media-based workshop, however, has to be further considered. An evaluation is currently underway. Other mail-only dissemination strategies with policy guidelines showed strong effects for the adoption of a sun protection policy but were ineffective in promoting sun protection practices [28,44]. Other criteria of the RE-AIM Framework such as implementation, adoption, and maintenance will have to be further evaluated in an implementation study [68].
Currently, there exist only a few evidence-based cancer prevention programs that have been extensively utilized in real-world preschool settings. There is the outstanding ‘SunSmart’ program in Australia with a broad population-based focus. Its multi-setting approach focuses on behavioral, environmental, and legislative changes and, together with media campaigns over many decades, appears to have resulted in the decrease of melanoma incidence [21]. One recent statewide effort for sun protection in the United States in preschool, kindergarten, and first-grade students is the ‘Ray and the Sunbeatables’™ program by the MD Anderson Cancer Center [21,95]. Within its implementation study, “observed curriculum adaptations and varied preschool contexts, highlight the need to consider fidelity of implementation of sun protection concepts and behaviors, and not exclusively fidelity of implementation of program components” [86]. Lack of time and change of staff turned out to be barriers to sustained implementation [90]. Redefining these barriers as opportunities, CLEVER offers additional material such as ‘sun protection yoga’ that regards fidelity of implementation of sun protection concepts rather than fidelity of the whole program. Therefore, new staff may be attracted by the low-threshold materials. Furthermore, a program during preschool teacher training is currently set up to reach young professionals. It may gradually support a change of culture that is required for educational institutions to accept sun protection as a duty of care and to implement not only regulatory measures and healthy policies but internalizing that leading by example may help protect students and staff from UV exposure during care time [38,96].

4.3. Limitations

The findings of the study may be limited to preschools that stated a high subjective need. However, baseline assessment of sun protection measures were similar to other surveys [35]. The study holds a high drop-out rate of 54% of staff members from baseline to 1-year follow-up. This might lead to an underestimation of the effectiveness of CLEVER, resulting in a sensitivity for medium to large effect sizes only. Besides reducing the power of the study, dropping out may threaten validity. Regarding internal validity, there is no indication that the frequency or the causes of dropping out differ between the intervention groups and therefore no indication that the results are biased by a differential drop-out [97]. Regarding external validity, drop-out in longitudinal studies threatens validity because participants that complete the trial might differ from participants that drop out during the trial. Significant differences in the baseline scores of Sun-Avoidance Self-Efficacy and Health-Related Outcome Expectancies were found, with slightly higher scores for staff members that dropped out early. These findings might indicate that a higher percentage of staff members with slightly more favorable attitudes towards UV protection was among the study participants that dropped out early. One reason for the high drop-out rate might be the high staff turnover, which is quite common in childcare institutions [87], and which may affect external validity. CLEVER results may be restricted to staff members that are present at the implementation of the intervention. To handle high staff turnover within a study, a cross-sectional approach might be more appropriate [20]. Another reason for the high drop-out may be the distribution of questionnaires via preschool management. Since the participation of staff members was anonymous, we provided plain envelopes and only few directors recorded who returned the questionnaire. Conducted reminders had low success. The reliability of some subscales, especially for behavior and impediments for avoiding the sun is quite low. Cronbach’s α of ‘Sun-Avoidance Behavior’ would have improved with the deletion of the item ‘students wear tank tops/halter tops’, but we decided to insert the item since wearing protective clothes is a crucial sun protection measure. Even if the construct is considered heterogeneous, the scale might be rethought. Social desirability bias as well as recall bias limit behavioral self-report methods. However, self-report by caregivers on child-centered sun-exposure-related variables is considered valid and reliable [98,99]. We did not correct significance levels for multiple tests, since post hoc sensitivity analysis showed that the study was powered only for medium to large effect sizes. Contrary to our expectations, sun protection measures differed not between the type of community in Saxony; therefore, a CRT sample without stratification may be more appropriate [33]. Data has not been collected from students in this study, thus no statement can be made about the children’s sun protection behavior and how it is related to the sun protection behavior of staff members. The CLEVER trial lasted 15 months. Gritz et al.’s findings indicate that changing attitudes towards sun protection may require more time [20]. Future studies should be designed with a broader time-frame.

5. Conclusions

Only a limited number of sun protection programs are evidence-based and have been utilized in real-world preschool settings. Evaluation results of our CRT show that CLEVER is a very promising program to sustainably promote sun protection in preschools. It is superior to the distribution of an information brochure concerning crucial outcomes, with medium to large effects on the actual behavior of staff members and important predeterminants of behavior change. The high drop-out rate limits the power of the study and may reduce generalizability. A further program development, the mail-only intervention with its media-based workshop, increases flexibility of the implementation and is already utilized. Over three years, the enhanced free-of-charge program kit has reached 7.1% of all daycare centers in Germany. The results show that CLEVER offers high-quality information at low cost and is easily disseminable. CLEVER engages in finding solutions for implementation barriers such as lack of time and change of staff. Additional low-threshold material to attract participants and to reinforce key behavioral messages is provided. The effectiveness of the current mail-only intervention, its implementation, adoption, and maintenance will be further evaluated.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/children8080651/s1, Figure S1: CLEVER-checklist for the development of the institutions’ individual sun protection strategy, Table S1: CONSORT 2010 checklist of information to include when reporting a randomised trial.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.S. and F.S.; methodology, N.S. and F.S.; validation, N.S. and F.S.; formal analysis, N.S.; investigation, N.S., F.S. and V.F.; data curation, N.S. and V.F; writing—original draft preparation, N.S.; writing—review and editing, F.S., V.F., M.B. and E.W.B.; visualization, N.S. and F.S.; supervision, F.S., M.B., and E.W.B.; project administration, N.S. and F.S.; funding acquisition, N.S., F.S., M.B. and E.W.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by Stiftung Deutsche Krebshilfe (German Cancer Aid) under the program for the ‘Development of Interdisciplinary Oncology Centers of Excellence in Germany’, reference number 107759. The program ‘Clever in Sun and Shade’ was supported by Stiftung Deutsche Krebshilfe (German Cancer Aid), reference number 70-2666.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the ethical board of the Technical University Dresden (project identification code: EK 328082016, date of approval: 19 July 2016).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all preschool staff participating in our research and all those conducting the CLEVER program. We would also like to thank our ‘Clever in Sun and Shade’-cooperation partners ADP e.V., the University of Cologne with its project “Die Sonne und Wir” and German Cancer Aid as well as Anke Rentsch and Bernd Löffler for advice in database designing. We would especially like to thank Sandra Herrmann for her contribution in preparing the study-recruitment within her doctoral thesis, Sandra Herrmann and Melanie Glausch for critically reviewing the questionnaire, and Jeannette Kuhnert for data cleansing.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Apalla, Z.; Nashan, D.; Weller, R.B.; Castellsagué, X. Skin Cancer: Epidemiology, Disease Burden, Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Therapeutic Approaches. Dermatol. Ther. 2017, 7, 5–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Greinert, R.; de Vries, E.; Erdmann, F.; Espina, C.; Auvinen, A.; Kesminiene, A.; Schüz, J. European Code against Cancer 4th Edition: Ultraviolet radiation and cancer. Cancer Epidemiol. 2015, 39 (Suppl. 1), S75–S83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. El Ghissassi, F.; Baan, R.; Straif, K.; Grosse, Y.; Secretan, B.; Bouvard, V.; Benbrahim-Tallaa, L.; Guha, N.; Freeman, C.; Galichet, L.; et al. A review of human carcinogens—part D: Radiation. Lancet Oncol. 2009, 10, 751–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Schmitt, J.; Haufe, E.; Trautmann, F.; Schulze, H.-J.; Elsner, P.; Drexler, H.; Bauer, A.; Letzel, S.; John, S.M.; Fartasch, M.; et al. Occupational UV-Exposure is a Major Risk Factor for Basal Cell Carcinoma: Results of the Population-Based Case-Control Study FB-181. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2018, 60, 36–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Autier, P.; Doré, J.-F.; for Epimel and Eortc Melanoma Cooperative Group. Influence of sun exposures during childhood and during adulthood on melanoma risk. Int. J. Cancer 1998, 77, 533–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Volkmer, B.; Greinert, R. UV and children’s skin. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 2011, 107, 386–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Green, A.C.; Wallingford, S.C.; McBride, P. Childhood exposure to ultraviolet radiation and harmful skin effects: Epidemiological evidence. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 2011, 107, 349–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Oliveria, S.A.; Saraiya, M.; Geller, A.C.; Heneghan, M.K.; Jorgensen, C. Sun exposure and risk of melanoma. Arch. Dis. Child. 2006, 91, 131–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Gandini, S.; Sera, F.; Cattaruzza, M.S.; Pasquini, P.; Picconi, O.; Boyle, P.; Melchi, C.F. Meta-analysis of risk factors for cutaneous melanoma: II. Sun exposure. Eur. J. Cancer 2005, 41, 45–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Greinert, R.; Volkmer, B.; Wende, A.; Voss, S.; Breitbart, E.W. Prävention von Hautkrebs: Notwendigkeit, Durchführung und Erfolg. Hautarzt 2003, 54, 1152–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, AWMF). S3-Leitlinie Prävention von Hautkrebs AWMF Registernummer: 032/052OL. Available online: https://www.leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/leitlinien/hautkrebs-praevention/ (accessed on 11 June 2021).
  12. Green, A.C.; Williams, G.M.; Logan, V.; Strutton, G.M. Reduced melanoma after regular sunscreen use: Randomized trial follow-up. J. Clin. Oncol. 2011, 29, 257–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Buller, D.B.; Borland, R. Skin cancer prevention for children: A critical review. Health Educ. Behav. 1999, 26, 317–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Crane, L.A.; Schneider, L.S.; Yohn, J.J.; Morelli, J.G.; Plomer, K.D. Block the Sun, Not the Fun: Evaluation of a Skin Cancer Prevention Program for Child Care Centers. Am. J. Prev. Med. 1999, 17, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Buller, D.B.; Taylor, A.M.; Buller, M.K.; Powers, P.J.; Maloy, J.A.; Beach, B.H. Evaluation of the Sunny Days, Healthy Ways sun safety curriculum for children in kindergarten through fifth grade. Pediatr. Dermatol. 2006, 23, 321–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Loescher, L.J.; Buller, M.K.; Buller, D.B.; Emerson, J.; Taylor, A.M. Public education projects in skin cancer. The evolution of skin cancer prevention education for children at a comprehensive cancer center. Cancer 1995, 75, 651–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Baranowski, T.; Bar-Or, O.; Blair, S.; Corbin, C.; Dowda, M.; Freedson, P.; Pate, R.; Plowman, S.; Sallis, J.; Saunders, R.; et al. Guidelines for School and Community Programs to Promote Lifelong Physical Activity Among Young People. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 1997, 50, 1–36. [Google Scholar]
  18. Stöver, L.A.; Hinrichs, B.; Petzold, U.; Kuhlmei, H.; Baumgart, J.; Parpart, C.; Rademacher, O.; Stockfleth, E. Getting in early: Primary skin cancer prevention at 55 German kindergartens. Br. J. Dermatol. 2012, 167 (Suppl. 2), 63–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gritz, E.R.; Tripp, M.K.; James, A.S.; Carvajal, S.C.; Harrist, R.B.; Mueller, N.H.; Chamberlain, R.M.; Parcel, G.S. An intervention for parents to promote preschool children’s sun protection: Effects of Sun Protection is Fun! Prev. Med. 2005, 41, 357–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gritz, E.R.; Tripp, M.K.; James, A.S.; Harrist, R.B.; Mueller, N.H.; Chamberlain, R.M.; Parcel, G.S. Effects of a preschool staff intervention on children’s sun protection: Outcomes of sun protection is fun! Health Educ. Behav. 2007, 34, 562–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Swetter, S.M.; Geller, A.C.; Leachman, S.A.; Kirkwood, J.M.; Katalinic, A.; Gershenwald, J.E. Melanoma Prevention and Screening. In Cutaneous Melanoma; Balch, C.M., Atkins, M.B., Garbe, C., Gershenwald, J.E., Halpern, A.C., Kirkwood, J.M., McArthur, G.A., Thompson, J.F., Sober, A.J., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Basel, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 525–570. ISBN 978-3-030-05068-9. [Google Scholar]
  22. Seidel, N.; Stoelzel, F.; Garzarolli, M.; Herrmann, S.; Breitbart, E.W.; Berth, H.; Baumann, M.; Ehninger, G. Sun protection training based on a theater play for preschoolers: An effective method for imparting knowledge on sun protection? J. Cancer Educ. 2013, 28, 435–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Turrisi, R.; Hillhouse, J.; Heavin, S.; Robinson, J.; Adams, M.; Berry, J. Examination of the short-term efficacy of a parent-based intervention to prevent skin cancer. J. Behav. Med. 2004, 27, 393–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Abeck, D.; Feucht, J.; Schäfer, T.; Behrendt, H.; Krämer, U.; Ring, J. Parental sun protection management in preschool children. Photodermatol. Photoimmunol. Photomed. 2000, 16, 139–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Seiffge-Krenke, I. Gesundheit als aktiver Gestaltungsprozess im menschlichen Lebenslauf. Entwicklungspsychologie 2008, 6, 822–836. [Google Scholar]
  26. Klostermann, S.; Bolte, G. Determinants of inadequate parental sun protection behaviour in their children--results of a cross-sectional study in Germany. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2014, 217, 363–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Duignan, M.; Signal, L.; Thomson, G. Good intentions, but inadequate practices-sun protection in early childhood centres, a qualitative study from New Zealand. N. Z. Med. J. 2014, 127, 40–50. [Google Scholar]
  28. Giles-Corti, B.; English, D.R.; Costa, C.; Milne, E.; Cross, D.; Johnston, R. Creating SunSmart schools. Health Educ. Res. 2004, 19, 98–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Börner, F.; Greinert, R.; Schütz, H.; Wiedemann, P. UV-Risikowahrnehmung in der Bevölkerung: Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Umfrage in Deutschland. Gesundheitswesen 2010, 72, e89–e97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Eichhorn, C.; Seibold, C.; Loss, J.; Steinmann, A.; Nagel, E. Kenntnisstand zum Thema UV-Strahlung und Sonnenschutz: Befragung von bayerischen Jugendlichen und jungen Erwachsenen. Hautarzt 2008, 59, 821–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gefeller, O.; Uter, W.; Pfahlberg, A.B. Good, but Not Perfect: Parental Knowledge about Risk Factors for Skin Cancer and the Necessity of Sun Protection in Southern Germany. Pediatr. Dermatol. 2015, 32, e159–e160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Keeney, S.; McKenna, H.; Fleming, P.; McIlfatrick, S. Attitudes, knowledge and behaviours with regard to skin cancer: A literature review. Eur. J. Oncol. Nurs. 2009, 13, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Herrmann, S. Bedarfsanalyse zur Hautkrebsprävention in sächsischen Kindertageseinrichtungen. Ph.D. Thesis, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  34. Dobbinson, S.; Wakefield, M.; Hill, D.; Girgis, A.; Aitken, J.F.; Beckmann, K.; Reeder, A.I.; Herd, N.; Spittal, M.J.; Fairthorne, A.; et al. Children’s sun exposure and sun protection: Prevalence in Australia and related parental factors. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2012, 66, 938–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Meise, R.; Uter, W.; Gefeller, O.; Pfahlberg, A. Hautkrebsprävention an bayerischen Kindergärten-Ausgewählte Ergebnisse der ErlKing Sun-Studie zum Thema Sonnenschutz. Das Gesundh. 2015, 77, A1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Vorbeck, L. Kindlicher Sonnenschutz in Oberfranken: Eine Empirische Erhebung in 79 Kindergärten. Ph.D. Thesis, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  37. Gefeller, O.; Li, J.; Uter, W.; Pfahlberg, A.B. The impact of parental knowledge and tanning attitudes on sun protection practice for young children in Germany. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11, 4768–4781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Kok, G.; Gottlieb, N.H.; Peters, G.-J.Y.; Mullen, P.D.; Parcel, G.S.; Ruiter, R.A.C.; Fernández, M.E.; Markham, C.; Bartholomew, L.K. A taxonomy of behaviour change methods: An Intervention Mapping approach. Health Psychol. Rev. 2016, 10, 297–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Weissberg, R.P.; Kumpfer, K.L.; Seligman, M.E.P. Prevention that works for children and youth. An introduction. Am. Psychol. 2003, 58, 425–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Quéreux, G.; Nguyen, J.-M.; Volteau, C.; Dréno, B. Prospective trial on a school-based skin cancer prevention project. Eur. J. Cancer Prev. 2009, 18, 133–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Buller, D.B.; Borland, R.; Woodall, W.G.; Hall, J.R.; Hines, J.M.; Burris-Woodall, P.; Cutter, G.R.; Miller, C.; Balmford, J.; Starling, R.; et al. Randomized trials on consider this, a tailored, internet-delivered smoking prevention program for adolescents. Health Educ. Behav. 2008, 35, 260–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Gies, P.; van Deventer, E.; Green, A.C.; Sinclair, C.; Tinker, R. Review of the Global Solar UV Index 2015 Workshop Report. Health Phys. 2018, 114, 84–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Purim, K.S.M.; Titski, A.C.K.; Leite, N. Photoprotection and the Environment. In Dermatology in Public Health Environments; Bonamigo, R.R., Dornelles, S.I.T., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Basel, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 1077–1087. ISBN 978-3-319-33917-7. [Google Scholar]
  44. Schofield, M.J.; Edwards, K.; Pearce, R. Effectiveness of two strategies for dissemination of sun-protection policy in New South Wales primary and secondary schools. Aust. N. Z. J. Public Health 1997, 21, 743–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Heckman, C.J.; Liang, K.; Riley, M. Awareness, understanding, use, and impact of the UV index: A systematic review of over two decades of international research. Prev. Med. 2019, 123, 71–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Dietrich, A.J.; Olson, A.L.; Sox, C.H.; Tosteson, T.D.; Grant-Petersson, J. Persistent increase in children’s sun protection in a randomized controlled community trial. Prev. Med. 2000, 31, 569–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hart, K.M.; Demarco, R.F. Primary prevention of skin cancer in children and adolescents: A review of the literature. J. Pediatr. Oncol. Nurs. 2008, 25, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Catford, J. Ottawa 1986: The fulcrum of global health development. Promot. Educ. 2007, 14 (Suppl. 2), 6–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Geene, R.; Reese, M. Handbuch Präventionsgesetz: Neuregelungen der Gesundheitsförderung; Mabuse-Verlag: Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  50. Tripp, M.K.; Vernon, S.W.; Gritz, E.R.; Diamond, P.M.; Mullen, P.D. Children’s skin cancer prevention: A systematic review of parents’ psychosocial measures. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2013, 44, 265–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Rabin, B.A.; Glasgow, R.E.; Kerner, J.F.; Klump, M.P.; Brownson, R.C. Dissemination and implementation research on community-based cancer prevention: A systematic review. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2010, 38, 443–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Wandersman, A.; Duffy, J.; Flaspohler, P.; Noonan, R.; Lubell, K.; Stillman, L.; Blachman, M.; Dunville, R.; Saul, J. Bridging the gap between prevention research and practice: The interactive systems framework for dissemination and implementation. Am. J. Community Psychol. 2008, 41, 171–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Flaspohler, P.; Lesesne, C.A.; Puddy, R.W.; Smith, E.; Wandersman, A. Advances in bridging research and practice: Introduction to the second special issue on the interactive system framework for dissemination and implementation. Am. J. Community Psychol. 2012, 50, 271–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Campbell, M.K.; Piaggio, G.; Elbourne, D.R.; Altman, D.G. Consort 2010 statement: Extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ 2012, 345, e5661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Michie, S.; Carey, R.N.; Johnston, M.; Rothman, A.J.; de Bruin, M.; Kelly, M.P.; Connell, L.E. From Theory-Inspired to Theory-Based Interventions: A Protocol for Developing and Testing a Methodology for Linking Behaviour Change Techniques to Theoretical Mechanisms of Action. Ann. Behav. Med. 2018, 52, 501–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Michie, S.; Richardson, M.; Johnston, M.; Abraham, C.; Francis, J.; Hardeman, W.; Eccles, M.P.; Cane, J.; Wood, C.E. The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: Building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Ann. Behav. Med. 2013, 46, 81–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Joronen, K.; Rankin, S.H.; Astedt-Kurki, P. School-based drama interventions in health promotion for children and adolescents: Systematic review. J. Adv. Nurs. 2008, 63, 116–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Bandura, A. Social Learning Theory; General Limiting Press: Morristown, NJ, USA, 1971. [Google Scholar]
  59. Bandura, A. Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory. Psychol. Health 1998, 13, 623–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Stiftung Deutsche Krebshilfe. Sommer, Sonne, Schattenspiele: Gut behütet vor UV-Strahlung. Available online: https://www.krebshilfe.de/fileadmin/Downloads/PDFs/Praeventionsratgeber/407_0076.pdf (accessed on 14 June 2021).
  61. James, A.S.; Tripp, M.K.; Parcel, G.S.; Sweeney, A.; Gritz, E.R. Psychosocial correlates of sun-protective practices of preschool staff toward their students. Health Educ. Res. 2002, 17, 305–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Bandura, A. Social Foundations of thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1986; ISBN 013815614X. [Google Scholar]
  64. Schwarzer, R. Modeling Health Behavior Change: How to Predict and Modify the Adoption and Maintenance of Health Behaviors. Appl. Psychol. 2008, 57, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Schüz, N.; Eid, M. Beyond the usual suspects: Target group- and behavior-specific factors add to a theory-based sun protection intervention for teenagers. J. Behav. Med. 2013, 36, 508–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Schwarzer, R.; Renner, B. Health-specific self-efficacy scales. Freie Univ. Berl. 2009, 14, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  67. Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations; The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  68. Glasgow, R.E.; Vogt, T.M.; Boles, S.M. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework. Am. J. Public Health 1999, 89, 1322–1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Buchner, A.; Lang, A.-G. Statistical power analyses using G Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav. Res. Methods 2009, 41, 1149–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  70. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  71. Reilly, J.J.; Kelly, L.; Montgomery, C.; Williamson, A.; Fisher, A.; McColl, J.H.; Lo Conte, R.; Paton, J.Y.; Grant, S. Physical activity to prevent obesity in young children: Cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2006, 333, 1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  72. Hedges, L.V.; Hedberg, E.C. Intraclass Correlation Values for Planning Group-Randomized Trials in Education. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 2007, 29, 60–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Peñalvo, J.L.; Sotos-Prieto, M.; Santos-Beneit, G.; Pocock, S.; Redondo, J.; Fuster, V. The Program SI! intervention for enhancing a healthy lifestyle in preschoolers: First results from a cluster randomized trial. BMC Public Health 2013, 13, 1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Van Breukelen, G.J.P.; Candel, M.J.J.M. Calculating sample sizes for cluster randomized trials: We can keep it simple and efficient! J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2012, 65, 1212–1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  75. Rutterford, C.; Copas, A.; Eldridge, S. Methods for sample size determination in cluster randomized trials. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2015, 44, 1051–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (and Sex and Drugs and ROCK’N’ROLL); Sage: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  77. Wu, S.; Crespi, C.M.; Wong, W.K. Comparison of methods for estimating the intraclass correlation coefficient for binary responses in cancer prevention cluster randomized trials. Contemp. Clin. Trials 2012, 33, 869–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  78. Hedges, L.V. Effect Sizes in Cluster-Randomized Designs. J. Educ. Behav. Stat. 2007, 32, 341–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Preacher, K.J.; Hayes, A.F. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods 2008, 40, 879–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, 2nd ed.; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  81. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows; IBM Corp: Armonk, NY, USA, 2020.
  82. Owen, N.; Glanz, K.; Sallis, J.F.; Kelder, S.H. Evidence-based approaches to dissemination and diffusion of physical activity interventions. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2006, 31, S35–S44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Sümen, A.; Öncel, S. Development of sun protection behaviors in preschoolers: A systematic review. Turkderm 2018, 52, 56–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Thoonen, K.; van Osch, L.; de Vries, H.; Jongen, S.; Schneider, F. Are Environmental Interventions Targeting Skin Cancer Prevention among Children and Adolescents Effective? A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  85. Hunkin, H.; Pollock, K.; Scupham, R. The National SunSmart Schools Program: Impact on sun protection policies and practices in Australian primary schools. Health Promot. J. Austr. 2020, 31, 251–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Tripp, M.; Talati, P.P.; Winters, E.; Yallen, A.S.; Galvan, C.; Euresti, M.; Garrison, S.; Gritz, E.; Peterson, S. Sunbeatables™ program implementation research in preschools. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation, Washington, DC, USA, 14–15 December 2015. [Google Scholar]
  87. Fiessler, C.; Pfahlberg, A.B.; Uter, W.; Gefeller, O. Shedding Light on the Shade: How Nurseries Protect Their Children from Ultraviolet Radiation. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Hunkin, H.; Morris, J.N. A decade of sun protection in Australian early-childhood services: Analysis of cross-sectional and repeated-measures data. Health Educ. Res. 2020, 35, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Harrison, S.L.; Saunders, V.; Nowak, M. Baseline survey of sun-protection knowledge, practices and policy in early childhood settings in Queensland, Australia. Health Educ. Res. 2007, 22, 261–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Tripp, M.; Talati, P.P.; Galvan, C.; Garrison, S.; Parrish, M.; Sibai, D.; Giordano, J.; Euresti, M.; Yallen, A.S.; Gritz, E.; et al. Sunbeatables™: Conceptualization of Implementation and Sustainability for a Preschool Sun Protection Program. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation, Washington, DC, USA, 14–15 December 2016. [Google Scholar]
  91. Li, J.; Uter, W.; Pfahlberg, A.; Gefeller, O. A comparison of patterns of sun protection during beach holidays and everyday outdoor activities in a population sample of young German children. Br. J. Dermatol. 2012, 166, 803–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Lee, H.; Herbert, R.D.; McAuley, J.H. Mediation Analysis. JAMA 2019, 321, 697–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Gefeller, O.; Uter, W.; Pfahlberg, A.B. Protection from Ultraviolet Radiation during Childhood: The Parental Perspective in Bavaria. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  94. Bock-Famulla, K.; Münchow, A.; Frings, J.; Kempf, F.; Schütz, J. Länderreport Frühkindliche Bildungssysteme 2019; Bertelsmann Stiftung: Gütersloh, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  95. LoConte, N.K.; Gershenwald, J.E.; Thomson, C.A.; Crane, T.E.; Harmon, G.E.; Rechis, R. Lifestyle Modifications and Policy Implications for Primary and Secondary Cancer Prevention: Diet, Exercise, Sun Safety, and Alcohol Reduction. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. Educ. Book 2018, 38, 88–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Nicholson, A.K.; Hill, J.; Walker, H.; Heward, S.; Dobbinson, S. Teacher perceptions of sun protection practices in the secondary school setting: Barriers, enablers and recommendations for future. Health Promot. J. Austr. 2020, 31, 258–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Bell, M.L.; Kenward, M.G.; Fairclough, D.L.; Horton, N.J. Differential dropout and bias in randomised controlled trials: When it matters and when it may not. BMJ 2013, 346, e8668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Hall, H.; Jorgensen, C.M.; McDavid, K.; Kraft, J.M.; Breslow, R. Protection from sun exposure in US white children ages 6 months to 11 years. Public Health Rep. 2001, 116, 353–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Mayer, J.A.; Sallis, J.F.; Eckhardt, L.; Creech, L.; Johnston, M.R.; Elder, J.P.; Lui, K.J. Assessing children’s ultraviolet radiation exposure: The use of parental recall via telephone interviews. Am. J. Public Health 1997, 87, 1046–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Children 08 00651 g001 550
Figure 1. Clown Zitzewitz, the ‘Sun protection clown’ © NCT/UCC 2020.
Figure 1. Clown Zitzewitz, the ‘Sun protection clown’ © NCT/UCC 2020.
Children 08 00651 g001
Children 08 00651 g002 550
Figure 2. CLEVER material for project week © NCT/UCC 2016.
Figure 2. CLEVER material for project week © NCT/UCC 2016.
Children 08 00651 g002
Children 08 00651 g003 550
Figure 3. Skin cancer prevention brochure by German Cancer Aid © German Cancer Aid 2016.
Figure 3. Skin cancer prevention brochure by German Cancer Aid © German Cancer Aid 2016.
Children 08 00651 g003
Children 08 00651 g004 550
Figure 4. Flowchart for enrollment, baseline measurement, and follow-up.
Figure 4. Flowchart for enrollment, baseline measurement, and follow-up.
Children 08 00651 g004
Children 08 00651 g005 550
Figure 5. Mediation analyses pathways for changes in Sun-Avoidance Behavior and Sunscreen Use Behavior.
Figure 5. Mediation analyses pathways for changes in Sun-Avoidance Behavior and Sunscreen Use Behavior.
Children 08 00651 g005
Children 08 00651 g006 550
Figure 6. Clown Zitzewitz and dermatologist in the film of the media-based workshop © NCT/UCC 2018.
Figure 6. Clown Zitzewitz and dermatologist in the film of the media-based workshop © NCT/UCC 2018.
Children 08 00651 g006
Children 08 00651 g007 550
Figure 7. CLEVER-checklist fosters goal-setting and detailed planning for the institutions’ individual sun protection strategy © NCT/UCC 2018.
Figure 7. CLEVER-checklist fosters goal-setting and detailed planning for the institutions’ individual sun protection strategy © NCT/UCC 2018.
Children 08 00651 g007
Children 08 00651 g008 550
Figure 8. CLEVER project kit for mailing © NCT/UCC 2018.
Figure 8. CLEVER project kit for mailing © NCT/UCC 2018.
Children 08 00651 g008
Children 08 00651 g009 550
Figure 9. The first of more than 250 CLEVER Awards © Deutsche Krebshilfe 2017.
Figure 9. The first of more than 250 CLEVER Awards © Deutsche Krebshilfe 2017.
Children 08 00651 g009
Children 08 00651 g010 550
Figure 10. Additional low-threshold yoga-material © NCT/UCC 2021.
Figure 10. Additional low-threshold yoga-material © NCT/UCC 2021.
Children 08 00651 g010
Children 08 00651 g011 550
Figure 11. Program website www.cleverinsonne.de © NCT/UCC 2021 (accessed on 27 July 2021).
Figure 11. Program website www.cleverinsonne.de © NCT/UCC 2021 (accessed on 27 July 2021).
Children 08 00651 g011
Table
Table 1. Recommendations for measures promoting primary skin cancer prevention, according to the German guideline on skin cancer prevention [11].
Table 1. Recommendations for measures promoting primary skin cancer prevention, according to the German guideline on skin cancer prevention [11].
Type of MeasureRecommendation
Knowledge-relatedEducational measures on UV radiation and protective measures in kindergarten/preschools and schools can improve knowledge about sun protection.
UV-risk communication should address aspects relevant to everyday life, the subjective perception of gain by UV exposure and the ideal of beauty of tanned skin. An important starting point for communication should be social ideals and behavioral routines with regard to tanned skin and sunbathing.
The range of media information on skin cancer prevention should be expanded qualitatively and quantitatively, since the media are the most important source of information for adults.
Digital media literacy as part of the population’s health literacy should be promoted in order to be able to find, understand, and assess the quality of information on skin cancer and skin cancer prevention in a more targeted manner.
Parents with children in kindergarten/preschool as well as educators, teachers, and daycare center/preschool managers should be informed about UV radiation as a risk factor for skin cancer and about the inadequate protective function of clouds against UV radiation.
BehavioralInterventions aimed at influencing behavior over the long term should consist of several components, be intensive, and designed to be repeated.
Behavioral change interventions should be based on behavioral theories and should take available evidence into account.
Measures to convey primary prevention of skin cancer should be multimedia-based as well as interactive and integrate several communication channels.
Information can be provided through parents, teachers, educators, peers, and other multipliers.
Skin cancer prevention interventions that also address external appearance are a promising strategy for changing sun protection behavior.
Measures for primary prevention of skin cancer should be designed with a focus on the target group and take the target group’s needs into account.
In order to reach people where they shape their everyday lives, measures for primary prevention of skin cancer should be setting-related.
Sun protection interventions for children and adolescents should be conducted in preschools and schools.
The UV Index should be more intensively communicated and used in sun protection recommendations and programs.
EnvironmentalA sufficient amount of shaded areas should be provided in kindergartens, preschools, and schools.
Technical and organizational measures to avoid excessive UV exposure, especially during the midday hours (e.g., provision of shaded areas, consideration of sun protection when scheduling sporting events for example) should be an essential part of primary prevention.
Evaluation: Primary skin cancer prevention interventions should be evaluated formatively and summatively. The evaluation parameters used should be derived from a theoretically proven model.
Table
Table 2. Scope, content, and methods for change of the CLEVER team workshop.
Table 2. Scope, content, and methods for change of the CLEVER team workshop.
ScopeContentMethods for Change
Promoting staff’s knowledge, attitudes and behaviorInformation about effects of the sun and sun protection recommendations: Background and recommendations on the prevention of skin cancer in childrenTailoring: information designed to meet staff’s stated needs of sun protection measures
Facilitation: pointing at barriers to adequate sun protection and advice on overcoming these barriers
Persuasive communication: Appeal to staff’s vocational goal of caring for children’s health and well-being
Framing: emphasizing risks of inappropriate sun protection
Consciousness raising: providing scientific background information about consequences of UV exposure
Active learning: presentation of information is combined with opportunities for staff members to discuss experiences and habits
Group discussion on consequences of excessive UV exposure and tanning attitudesDiscussion: Staff members are encouraged to discuss their attitudes and behavior in an open debate
Self-reevaluation: encouraging reflection on knowledge and attitudes
Joint planning of suitable sun- protection measures on behavioral and environmental levelParticipation: joint discussion assures high level of engagement of staff members, which helps to promote changes in attitudes and behavior (individual level)
Goal setting/implementation intentions: discussing and fixing goals and concrete behaviors for sun protection
Environmental changes in preschoolDevelopment of an individual sun protection strategyParticipatory problem solving: staff team identifies current sun protection measures and develops a strategy for future measures
Structural redesign: staff team reflects on organizational and technical elements that impede sun protection and finds ways to change them
Public commitment: sun protection strategy is displayed in preschool, visible for staff and parents
Providing material for educational measuresPresentation and distribution of the CLEVER project week materialFacilitation: easy-to-use materials reduce barriers to sensitize children for sun protection
Table
Table 4. Baseline demographic characteristics and baseline outcome scores of preschool staff.
Table 4. Baseline demographic characteristics and baseline outcome scores of preschool staff.
Intervention
(n = 146)		Control
(n = 127)
Demographic characteristics
Age, mean (SD)42.5 (12.43)43.7 (12.52)
Gender, N females (%)140 (96.6)123 (96.9)
Education, N (%)
Less than 10th grade1 (0.7)0 (0.0)
10th grade85 (61.6)76 (60.8)
Higher than 10th grade52 (30.2)49 (39.2)
Baseline outcome scores
Behavioral outcomes, mean (SD)
Sunscreen use2.40 (0.81)2.21 (0.81)
Sun avoidance2.80 (0.51)2.82 (0.43)
Psychosocial outcomes, mean (SD)
Sunscreen use self-efficacy3.11 (0.62)3.06 (0.73)
Sun avoidance self-efficacy3.03 (0.61)3.11 (0.61)
Health-related outcome expectancies3.40 (1.00)3.26 (1.08)
Appearance-related outcome expectancies2.50 (0.90)2.53 (1.03)
Impediments to sunscreen use0.73 (0.94)0.97 (1.23)
Impediments to sun avoidance1.65 (0.92)1.41 (1.01)
Necessity of sun protection3.08 (1.07)3.07 (0.62)
Sun protection policy, mean (SD)1.50 (1.18)1.73 (1.23)
Table
Table 5. Changes in behavioral and psychosocial outcomes and Sun Protection Policy scores after 1 month and 1 year.
Table 5. Changes in behavioral and psychosocial outcomes and Sun Protection Policy scores after 1 month and 1 year.
ScaleWithin Group Difference Intervention GroupWithin Group Difference Control GroupBetween Group Difference in Changes
Score RangeBaseline–1 Month Mean (95% CI) 1Baseline–1 Year Mean (95% CI)1Baseline–1 Month Mean (95% CI)1Baseline–1 Year Mean (95% CI) 1Mean (95% CI) 1Test for SignificanceEffect Size Hedges’ dB (95% CI)
Behavioral Outcomes
Sunscreen Use0–4 0.47
(0.25, 0.69)		 0.46
(0.24, 0.68)		−0.01
(−0.40, 0.37)		F(1, 12.6) = 0.01,
p = 0.95		−0.01
(−0.43, 0.40)
Sun-Avoidance0–4 0.17
(0.05, 0.29)		 −0.02
(−0.15, 0.10)		0.19
(0.02, 0.37)		F(1, 140) = 4.93,
p ˂ 0.05		0.70
(0.04, 0.71)
Psychosocial Outcomes
Sunscreen Use Self-Efficacy0–40.40
(0.26, 0.54)		 0.08
(−0.07, 0.23)		 0.30
(0.02, 0.57)		F(1, 18.2) = 5.12,
p ˂ 0.05		0.71
(0.03, 0.88)
Sun-Avoidance Self-Efficacy0–40.29
(0.15, 0.43)		 −0.20
(−0.35, −0.05)		 0.49
(0.26, 0.72)		F(1, 9.8) = 22.38,
p ˂ 0.001		1.09
(0.39, 1.07)
Health-Related Outcome Expectancies0–40.24
(−0.03, 0.52)		 0.39
(0.10, 0.68)		 0.21
(−0.22, 0.65)		F(1, 15.7) = 0.40,
p = 0.54		0.24
(−0.23, 0.69)
Appearance-Related Outcome Expectancies0–40.01
(−0.21, 0.22)		 0.00
(−0.22, 0.22)		 0.00
(−0.35, 0.36)		F(1, 16.3) = 0.00,
p = 0.99		0.00
(−0.29, 0.30)
Impediments to Sunscreen Use0–4 −0.17
(−0.37, 0.03)		 −0.15
(−0.36, 0.06)		−0.15
(−0.43, 0.13)		F(1,18.2) = 0.00,
p = 0.97		−0.20
(−0.50, 0.15)
Impediments to Sun Avoidance0–4 −0.32
(−0.52, −0.12)		 0.11
(−0.09, 0.32)		−0.43
(−0.72, −0.15)		F(1,141) = 9.27,
p < 0.01		−0.56
(−0.82, −0.17)
Necessity for Sun protection0–40.36
(−0.07, 0.33)		-0.23
(0.08, 0.37)		-0.14
(−0.09, 0.36)		F(1,18.6) = 1.62,
p = 0.22		0.35
(−0.14, 0.57)
Sun protection Policy0–3 0.72
(0.38, 1.06)		 0.59
(0.26, 0.91)		0.13
(−0.34, 0.60)		F(1,118) = 0.31,
p = 0.58		0.08
(−0.26, 0.46)
1 Adjusted for baseline score and age.
Table
Table 6. Baseline item ratings of preschool staff members (n = 273).
Table 6. Baseline item ratings of preschool staff members (n = 273).
Scales and ItemsScale Mean (SD)Item Median (Range)
Behavioral outcomes
Sunscreen Use2.31 (0.82)
Put sunscreen on students when outside 3 (4)
Take sunscreen along on field trips 2 (4)
Use sunscreen for students UPF 30+ 4 (4)
Reapply sunscreen every 2 h 2 (4)
Put sunscreen on myself when outside with students 4 (4)
Sun-Avoidance2.81 (0.47)
Students wear hats/caps when outside 2 (3)
Students wear tank tops/halter tops when outside1 2 (4)
Students wear long shorts/skirts when outside 2 (4)
Set up shaded areas outside and on field trips 4 (4)
Keep to shaded areas themselves and use protective clothing, when outside with students 3 (4)
Psychosocial outcomes
Sunscreen Use Self-Efficacy3.09 (0.67)
Properly apply sunscreen 4 (4)
Ensure parents support provision/use of sunscreen 3 (4)
Take sunscreen on any occasion 3 (4)
Get more sunscreen when necessary 3 (4)
Sun-Avoidance Self-Efficacy3.07 (0.61)
Ensure parents provide protective clothing 3 (4)
Decide if area is sufficiently shaded 4 (4)
Check students wearing protective clothing 2 (4)
Provide spare clothes 4 (3)
Health-Related Outcome Expectancies3.34 (1.04)
Decreased risk for premature skin-aging 4 (4)
Decreased risk for skin cancer 4 (4)
Appearance-Related Outcome Expectancies2.51 (0.96)
Tanning makes me look better 1 2 (4)
Tanned skin is healthy skin 1 3 (4)
Impediments to Sunscreen Use1.14 (0.84)
It takes too much time 0 (4)
It is always messy 0 (4)
Impediments to Sun-Avoidance1.29 (0.88)
We do not have enough shade 0 (4)
Preventing taking of protective clothing is difficult 2 (4)
Necessity of Sun protection3.08 (0.67)
At the beach 4 (4)
At noon 4 (4)
On sunny evenings 2 (4)
On cloudy summer days 2 (4)
During outdoor sports activities 4 (4)
Sun Protection Policy1.60 (1.20)
Parents are requested to bring hats or protective clothing 1 (1)
Parents are requested to provide sunscreen or preschool supplies sunscreen 1 (1)
Parents are requested to provide permission for the use of sunscreen 0 (1)
1 Indicates item was reversed.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Seidel, N.; Fieber, V.; Breitbart, E.W.; Bornhäuser, M.; Stölzel, F. Cluster Randomized Trial: Sun Protection Intervention ‘Clever in Sun and Shade for Preschools’—Effectiveness and Dissemination. Children 2021, 8, 651. https://doi.org/10.3390/children8080651

AMA Style

Seidel N, Fieber V, Breitbart EW, Bornhäuser M, Stölzel F. Cluster Randomized Trial: Sun Protection Intervention ‘Clever in Sun and Shade for Preschools’—Effectiveness and Dissemination. Children. 2021; 8(8):651. https://doi.org/10.3390/children8080651

Chicago/Turabian Style

Seidel, Nadja, Vera Fieber, Eckhard Wilhem Breitbart, Martin Bornhäuser, and Friederike Stölzel. 2021. "Cluster Randomized Trial: Sun Protection Intervention ‘Clever in Sun and Shade for Preschools’—Effectiveness and Dissemination" Children 8, no. 8: 651. https://doi.org/10.3390/children8080651

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop